Sells

You said

"This tradition of anchoring biblical texts in history does not stand the test of“did it actually happen”such as we modern day historians would insist."

The protestant churches simply do not know what to do with Mary.It is clearly not historical in the modern sense of something"that really happened"but nor can we accept the extended theological development of her story.We are left with an awkward story best relegated to the children's nativity play where the cuteness of the performers elevates the story to the level of the sacred making it theologically unassailable for pastoral reasons.

I like George's perspective on this even though I cannot embrace the main body of CatholicMariology.The roles the women play inthe Gospels in particular but in the Bible generally setup an interesting tension between the male dominated culture and Divine will.The mere fact the Resurrection is announced by a woman subverts the Priestly monopoly on Divine mediation.Even Mary's name points towards this subversive undercurrent inthe Biblical portrayal of women.Mary's name might mean'origin'but it cannot be escaped that in form and sound it is connected to the Hebrew word mara which means to be rebellious and disobedient.The name is also,importantly,a reference tothe prophetess Miriam,Moses' older sister.

There is plenty of evidence that women played a major role in the early church and that many of them were torn between Christianity and some of the Mystery religions which enjoyed great popularity among Roman women of the time.The presence of the story in Lukes Gospel is an historical and interesting fact even if the virgin birth is not.The milieu in which the early Church was formed dominated politically by the Roman Magisterium andinformed by Greek classical philosophy.It struggled to distinguish itself from the Mystery religions but it was built within the framework of Hebrew thought which us dominated by metaphor,symbol and theological narrative.

If Mary is a metaphor for the Church then perhaps here we have Biblical justification for including women as active participants in all aspects of the Church's life.Perhaps there is even an argument here for preferring women in leadership roles in the Church

Thanks for some interesting posts (and some uninteresting ones!). I disagree with Polycarp's biblical literalism (obviously). To speculate about an egg of Mary being fertilized by God is to miss the point of the incarnation. As for Mary so for us, the Christ must be conceived in our hearts. That means that we must believe the word of God when we hear it. The virginal conception of Christ is not a nature miracle but an account of how anyone comes to faith. Your interpretation demonstrates the extreme materialism that is our inheritance of the modern age as well as the extreme historicism that goes with it.

Peter Sellick

Dear Sells....our disagreemnt aside.. I was just plumbing the depths of Catholic theology..which to me seems a tad 'pharisaical' but not in the hypocritical sense..nay..in the "We have to have an answer for every question and a rule for every circumstance" area.

The Catholic theologians would not take the trouble to try to tie down the detailed issues of the conception and the other things unless they felt it was important.

To be honest.. up till this thread arose I've not thought about it myself too much, but the area of 'how' God insemminated Mary, as in.. did the Father fertilize one of Mary's eggs..or. place the Messiah as an embryo in her womb... is surely worth considering for sure.

But at least now, I see why the Church tries to answer all these questions and take a firm stance on it..because as night follows day, there will be some bright spark who suddenly latches onto this and turns it into a new cult or something.

On the 'conception of faith in our hearts' :) well... yes.. to me the whole thing is rather meaningless unless there is a rational and real basis for it. If it were not so, then we can all come up with quaint and profound ideas of our own...no?

Polycarp

You said

".. to me the whole thing is rather meaningless unless there is a rational and real basis for it."

Im sorry but I cannot agree that'meaning'is necessarily concomitant with 'rationality' and'reality'if by these you mean the strict adherence to logic and the rules of scientific investigation and require mere reporting of events that 'actually happened'.

Love reduced to 'rationality' becomes utilitarian, the antithesis of Love as Christ portrayed it. There is something more to the Gospel than the reporting of events that 'actually happened'.I suspect that the 'something more' is so important that it transcends any merely scientific/historical account of events.

If the Gospels were pure fiction and the story of Mary a work of pure theological imagination the message of Love would be no less powerful. Faith is a sort of irrational commitment to live as if Christ is by ones side. Theology is the rational business of questioning, challenging, refuting and refining that faith.As an intellectual abstraction in isolation from faith theology is a bit of a nonsense.

Sells interpretation of the Mary narrative as a 'model' for faith practice is interesting but I wonder if, when pressed,it doesnt degenerate into mere religious sentimentality.

It seems to me that Jesus turned Hebrew theology back on itself rather than radically transforming it into anything new. The realisation of what Jesus had done came slowly to His disciples but made sense immediately to the women precisely because they experienced Him immediately in the way that a slave embraces her liberator. Without particularly trying to rationalise Jesus' theology the women understood it as lived experience. The insertion of the conception narrative comes late to the NT because it was written by men who came only slowly to full realisation(if they can be said to have ever achieved full realisation) of the implications of the Gospel. Sells interpretation of the story is very rational and masculine. That may be appropriate in terms of the authors intent but its individual focus has a sentimental ring that, for me, is dissonant with the Gospel of justice and mercy that I read.

Dear Waterboy... you said:

1/ If the Gospels were pure fiction and the story of Mary a work of pure theological imagination the message of Love would be no less powerful.

2/ Sells interpretation of the Mary narrative as a 'model' for faith practice is interesting but I wonder if, when pressed,it doesnt degenerate into mere religious sentimentality.

I can't quite agree with your '1/ statement.. and the reason is found in your '2/ statement.

The point I was seeking to make is that "if" there is no real historical basis for the events portrayed in the Gospels.. then of course they are exactly what you said in '2/ "religious sentimentality".

That's the problem.

I don't want my life to be guided by "misguided" sentimentality....
This is what Paul answers in 1 Cor 15 when he says:

"If Christ is not raised from the dead, then we of all men are most to be pitied".

Now..he didn't just suddenly look back from a point in time where he realized "hey... how come I'm doing all this religious stuff...and suffering as I am.. and going without wife, and material possessions...hmmm I better justify it be inventing some kind of basis....i.e.. the resurrection..aahhh YES..that'll do it" :)

No..it was his encounter with the Risen Christ which set him on this path... that was his whole life rationale...

Just so, we must (in my view) avoid sentimentality for it's own sake..and tie whatever sentiments we have to the reported facts of Scripture. Then our sentiment will be solid and well founded.

Other than this it just becomes vague subjective mysticism. No ?

Polycarp

No, not mysticism at all!
(Perhaps Sells is right about post-enlightenment materialism that sees mysticism in everything that fails the 'solid facts' test.)

I dont think anyone doubts that the the Gospels refer to an historical figure, Jesus and naturally Jesus had a mother. The Gospels, however, tell the story of what God is doing.

The point is that Christology developed over a period of time. It wasnt fully-formed at the time of the crucifixion. The resurrection experience, whatever that was, represents the beginning of Christological reflection which took 400 yrs to mature into the sophisticated formula that we know today. As for Paul's Damascus Road experience, it, or something like it, was necessary to establish his 'apostolic' credentials. Given the tension that existed between him and James it perhaps isnt wise to make too much of that 'event'.

The Gospels, themselves, represent the culmination of many years of theological reflection. Their purpose was to proclaim the good news that salvation history had taken a significant new turn in Jesus. The facts of Jesus life are little more than the 'historical hooks' upon which to hang their theology. They place Jesus in the context of salvation history, in a continuity with Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah and so on. There were, no doubt, events that actually happened around Jesus, what we would call facts of history, but the Gospels are about salvation history which is quite a different thing.

The NT was, in its original context, politically subversive literature. It was provocative and dangerous. The sloppy, sentimental interpretations promulgated by contemporary fundamentalist and charismatic churches with their emphasis on personal salvation may satisfy modern materialistic sensibilities but the sharp end of the Gospel is a Church that challenges the magisterium on behalf of the outcast and the oppressed. Its not the heroic idolisation of the man Jesus.